"Three things you can't hide: The Sun, The Moon and The Truth." ~ Buddha.

Sunday, March 17, 2013

BYPASS well was not a sidetrack

- BK Lim & FASEI

So when is a “bypass” not a bypass from the
same well but from another well location?

That should have been the question to ask
Transocean's OIM (Jimmy Harrel) on the Deepwater Horizon, during his
27 May 2010 testimony in the USCG-MMS investigation hearing.

Jim Harrel was clearly taken aback when asked to
elaborate on the specific problems encountered (such as loss
circulation, pipe stuck, cementing and other safety issues)
throughout the duration of the WELL (@min 5:30). Harrel clearly
stumbled when he asked “....you...err...talking….about the
well...” as if to ask if he was to detail out the problems on all
the 3 wells BP had drilled since 3 Feb. He looked relieved when the
counsel corrected himself by stating “the drilling of the well, the
BYPASS” from “March to April”.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/293757-1

The oilfield term “bypass” has the same
connotation as common usage, that is “to drive around an
obstruction”. There are 2 ways to do this. By drilling a
“sidetrack” (deviated well trajectory) from the original wellbore
at a vertical angle no greater than 4o. Alternatively, the
“BYPASS” could be drilled from a new surface location which is in
effect a new well.

After explaining that the “well” had several
loss circulations, couple of kicks and a stuck pipe, Jim Harrel then
volunteered the statement “.....actually not a sidetrack.”
This significant fact in his testimony was ignored by pro-BP
lawyers, industry experts, scientists and main stream media
reporting on the BP Gulf Oil Spill Disaster (BPGOSD).

The definition of sidetrack from Schlumberger:

This would immediately prove that BP committed
perjury by stating before Congress only one well was drilled on
the MC252 lease before 20 April 2010 (not including the 2 relief
wells drilled after the “accident”). Confirmed by several inquiries to BP.

It is simply beyond anyone's comprehension how BP
could have spent 115 days (75 days from 3Feb to 20Apr 2010 and
another 40 days from 29 Sept- 8Nov 2009) on a single exploratory well
which would have normally taken 2- 4 weeks to complete?

Together with the costs of personnel, support and
operation, the drilling rig would have cost about $1 million per day
to be at well location. No cost-cutting exploration giant could have
spent that kind of money on every well and still be a profitable
enterprise. The Dept of Interior confirmed that only 1 in 5 is
economical in the deep water prospects. With that kind of success, it
would have been suicidal for any deep water exploration company to be
so stubbornly persistent on every failed well. This proves that the
Macondo well was drilled not purely for exploration purpose but to
cause a “deep accident”.

What was so special about the Macondo prospect
with a known reserve of only 50 million barrels? BP's other deep
water discoveries were all 10 to 60 times larger; with reserves
ranging from 0.5- 3 billion barrels. None of the deeper exploratory
wells in the Tiber field (discovered in Aug 2009, 0.5 billion
barrels, TD 35,055ft), Kaskida field (discovered in 2006, 3 billion
barrels, TD 32,500ft) and Thunderhorse (discovered 1999, 1 billion
barrels, TD 25,770ft) cost more than the shallower Macondo well at TD
18,360ft.

Tiber and Kaskida were drilled using the Deepwater
Horizon (DWH) and Thunderhorse by Discover Enterprise. All had
dynamic positioning (DP) capability which is essential for deep water
operation. So why was the TransOcean Marianas (TOM) with no DP
capability initially used for the Macondo well in 2009? In BP's
exploration plan, 42 days were allocated for the anchor handling
operation alone. This would have cost BP almost $30million in
unnecessary field operation. Almost the budgeted cost of each Macondo
well at $30 million which was very high by any standard.

Detailed costing and exploration are the subject
of a new article in preparation but presented here to emphasise the
point that more than 1 well was drilled, both time and cost wise.
Jim Harrel's confirmation “.....actually it was not a
sidetrack....” struck a chord with most independent experts'
analyses that BP drilled more than 1 well. Our technical analyses
since Aug 2010, confirmed BP drilled 3 wells.

Figure 4.1 (by TrialGraphix) shows the Macondo
Well Schematic found at page 93 of the National Commission
Investigation report on BPGOSD. This vertical well schematic is the
accepted final version of the Macondo well design, similar to the
original June 2009 well design given by BP (figure 2, above) of their
investigation report dated 8 Sept 2010.

The final well trajectory as a single vertical
well bore illustrated in figure 4.1 (above) is consistent with Jim
Harrel's testimony that the BYPASS was not a sidetrack. If it were
then the deviated trajectory and well schematic would have looked
like the following “fake BYPASS” schematic in the next figure.

This deviated well trajectory (bypass by
sidetrack) was never found in all the official investigation reports.
Like all the fake information (dis-info) given to us, we were not
sure of the reason and source initially. The last person to have
passed this to us, could have been an “innocent layman messenger”.
To know the reasons and source, we of course, dangled the “carrot”
as one of the “physics of impossibility” lies in the previous
articles. There are many technical reasons why the “sidetrack
bypass” could not have been successfully executed. Details are
given in a book to follow. As we had been saying; “they don't play
HAARP for fun”.

The reasons (for the planted dis-info) would show
at the right time and right place. It is for the same reason we do
not reveal what we knew of Jim Harrel's testimony until necessary.
The way the counsels skirted the 3 wells issue and the conspicuous
absence of any deeper enquiry into the 2 significant well control
events (shallow gas blow-out essentially) on or about 13 Feb and 10
March 2010, confirmed these were more sensitive than BP were prepared
to admit. Corroboration with other facts, confirm BP could not have
designed and orchestrated this “murderous plot disguised as an
accident (MPDAA)” alone. They have had “assistance” from higher
authorities in the orchestration and continue to have “assistance”
in the massive cover-up.

The facts also confirmed that the present show
trials will never go beyond giving BP a “slap on the wrist” for
an “accident caused by gross negligence”. This is despite the
fact that all documented evidence point to a MPDAA planned in concert
with several similar Blow-out-Oil Spills (BOS) that had happened or
failed to happen in the 2008 – 2011 period. There are global Oil
Mafia agenda to all these BOS. Never in the history of industrial
accidents have so many mega BOS occurred in the most advanced
countries with the most stringent offshore regulations within such a
short period of time.

Unfortunately the corporate crooks in collusion
with criminal agents in the regulating authorities, continue to enjoy
impunities for their crimes of mass destruction and mass deception.
Similarly, the sink hole-salt cavern crisis in Louisiana were
manufactured and had been planned to happen immediately after the
BPGOSD. Although the rate of erosion by the salt mining operation
could be accurately estimated, Nature refused to cooperate by
collapsing the sink hole at the “predicted time”. If BP and their
cabal masters were smart enough to plan and orchestrate BPGOSD, they
would have been smart enough to plan their escape. An open trial was
never part of their escape plan. They never thought all of their PMDs
could have failed so badly (in achieving their sinister objectives)
in the last 3 years.

They had hoped BPGOSD (aided with multiple
deliberate explosive events) would be the trigger to unleash the
natural pent-up stress along the North American Intra-plate Boundary
(NAIB, encompasses the New Madrid fault zone) to create a doomsday
Armageddon, all the way from the Gulf coast to the St Lawrence Seaway
in North-East Canada.

The catastrophe that followed BPGOSD would have
been so great, no one would even bother with micro-faulting BP as we
have seen in the current trial, 3 years later. The Great NAIB
Catastrophe of 2009-2010 was intended to be the “reset button”
for many of the Banksters' financial woes. Evidently there were
Divine Intervention. Instead of a cascading chain of catastrophic
disasters as the evil master planners had hoped for, the great quakes
all along the New Madrid which FEMA had planned for, failed to
materialise. Instead there were abnormal occurrences of hundreds of
quake swarms and rumbling tremors following the 1Aug2010 nuke event.
Imagine the cumulative amount of energy that had been released since
then. And many still asked why GOD allowed these disasters to happen?

If we are not yet awaken to see these miracles of
Nature, to see the murderous plots behind these MPDAA and be bold
enough to demand justice for these crimes of mass destruction &
deception, do we deserve to ask GOD for more?